Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please.

Gary Sims, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

All right. Good morning, Mr. Sims.

Good morning, your Honor.

Mr. Sims, you are reminded you are still under oath. And Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your cross-examination.

Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

THE JURY: Good morning.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK

Good morning, Mr. Sims. How are you this morning?

Good morning. I'm fine.

We left off yesterday talking about the amounts of DNA in samples found at the Bundy crime scene, some from June 13th, some from July--one from July 3rd.

Yes.

Now, in terms of RFLP testing, your protocol indicates that would you like to have as much as 150 nanograms to do an RFLP test?

Well, we would like to have even more than that if we could get it. It makes the turn-around time a lot faster.

But the statement in your protocol is that your--you are ideally looking for at least 150 nanograms?

No. I believe that--that misstates the protocol.

You tell me.

Well, what we would like to have is at least 50, but if we had our druthers, we would like to put, say, about 400 on the gel.

Uh-huh. But it would be a fair statement that 50 nanograms is about as low as you like to go with an RFLP test?

With--with some of the newer probes we are even getting down into the 25 nanogram range. Dr. Budwole from the FBI has recently published an article in which one of the newer probes, dF5S110 was shown to be as sensitive as down to 25 nanograms, maybe even ten nanograms, so that sensitivities have been improved on some of the probes, but, yes, ideally we would like about 50 at minimum.

Well, you recall discussing these issues in August?

Yes, I do.

And in August did you indicate that 50 nanograms is about as low as we like to go with the RFLP procedures? In other words, the sensitivity is pretty weak below 50 nanograms?

Yes.

Now, would you agree that in a drop of blood there is about a thousand nanograms of human DNA?

Yes. The recovery would be--in a drop of blood would be about a thousand nanograms, which is about a microgram of DNA, yes.

And in a microliter of DNA you would have--expect to find about 20 nanograms?

Microliter of DNA.

Microliter of blood, my apologies.

In a microliter of blood, yes, it would be about 20 nanograms.

And a microliter of blood would produce a spot about the size of a pin head?

Yes.

So these Bundy drops at best, 52, has the human DNA equivalent to a pin head's worth of blood?

Objection, that is argumentative. It is vague.

Rephrase the question.

All right. Assuming that no. 52--that is the LAPD item number from which the RFLP was performed.

Okay.

Is that right?

Yes.

Assuming that that has on the order of 25 to 30 nanograms of human DNA--

Objection. That is an improper hypothetical, inconsistent with the testimony.

Sustained.

All right. Assuming it has something on the order of 31.5 nanograms of human DNA--

Same objection.

Sustained.

Well, you would agree that 20 nanograms would come from one microliter of blood?

One fresh microliter of blood, not necessarily a bloodstain.

Right. One fresh microliter of blood?

Right.

And that is the size of a pin head?

That is right, but now you are talking about a volume of blood, as opposed to if you were to spot about--I think I mentioned yesterday, if you were to look at a bloodstain of about a millimeter by a millimeter, which is about a pin head, you would usually recover about two nanograms, so it is the recovery is not always the same. I mean, it is one thing to talk about a stain and how much DNA you would get out of a stain versus if you were to look at the DNA in a volume of liquid blood.

Right.

There is a difference.

There is a difference, and the difference is--has to do with the DNA contents of the volume you are dealing with?

Well, it is--no. What I'm trying to distinguish a volume of liquid whole blood--

Yes.

--and what you can extract out of that versus what you typically would get out of a bloodstain on a garment or something like that.

But the point is, is that to the extent that you put an amount of--you extract DNA from an amount of blood, right?

Yes.

The amount of DNA you can get out of the amount of--the volume of blood is dependent on the number of cells within that volume of blood from which you can extract DNA?

Yes.

And if you have blood with a comparatively high content of DNA per volume, you are going to get a bigger yield?

Yes.

And so if you cross-contaminate a degraded sample with blood that has more DNA, you are going to get a bigger yield from the contaminant that has a greater amount of DNA in that volume of blood?

Objection. That misstates the testimony and it is compound.

Overruled.

I'm not sure I understand that question.

All right. Let's try it again. You have a degraded sample, okay?

Okay.

Well, let's do it this way: There are volumes of blood that have higher DNA content than other volumes of blood?

Yes. We saw that in this case, for example, with the reference sample.

And so if there is a transfer of a volume of blood with a high natural content on to a sample where the DNA has been degraded to the point where it is not detectable--are you with me?

Yes.

--you are going to get a yield in terms of nanograms of DNA that might be, for example, higher than you would expect to find on a blood swatch that had been degraded?

Yes. I think I understand. I was following you well until the very end there. Are you saying that if you took a blood volume of liquid from a person that had a high level of DNA and then that got onto the degraded stain, then that would be higher than if you took a person that had a lower level of DNA to begin with and got that onto the stain?

Going back to that whole discussion we had yesterday, remember the charts about some volumes of blood have higher DNA content than others?

Well, I think what you are saying is some people at different times their bloods are different. For example, you may have more white blood cells than I have. Is that what you are saying.

No, no.

Okay. I'm lost.

I'm talking about you agreed, I think you are saying, that you would expect to find, for example, in a reference tube, in the volume of blood in a reference tube, higher yield of DNA content from a volume than you would from a stain that had been picked up off a dirty substrate and put in a plastic bag and degraded for seven hours, right?

Oh, yes, yes. The answer to that is yes.

Okay. So when you take blood from samples that have a higher DNA content, assume the blood has a higher DNA content, you cross-contaminate it onto something else that has virtually no DNA content or not a detectable DNA content, you are going to get the yield from the volume of blood that has the higher DNA content?

Objection, compound, and it is unintelligible.

Do you understand the question, Mr. Sims?

Actually that one I think I do.

All right. Go ahead.

I think the answer to that is yes.

Thank you. Okay.

You talked yesterday about substrate controls?

Yes.

And Mr. Harmon asked you a lot of questions about that. Do you recall those?

Yes, I do.

All right. And one purpose you talked about of a substrate control is to swatch a section near a stain in order to see if there is some cellular material near that stain?

Yes. In other words, if there may be some background DNA that may contribute to what you might see in a stain.

Right. But you were suggesting that a substrate control could also serve another purpose in terms of being--giving us some information about the possibility of cross-contamination in the handling of samples?

Objection, it is argumentative what he was suggesting.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

All right. Were you asked a series of questions yesterday by Mr. Harmon and you gave answers indicating that you thought the substrate controls could be looked at to give us some information about the possibility of cross-contamination in the handling of samples?

Well, I--

Objection. I don't remember what the basis was, your Honor. That is misleading. That misstates his testimony of yesterday.

Overruled.

Well, I think it doesn't just give you some information. I think it gives you a great deal of information about how those samples were processed.

All right. You were asked questions about--well, I forget how you were asked questions. Let's try it this way: You gave testimony that the substrate controls might give us information about whether or not laboratory criminalists, when they handled the swatches at the crime laboratory, cross-contaminated samples?

Yes.

And that would include the point where the swatches were taken out of--were wet and taken out of the plastic bags with the test-tubes?

Yes. Assuming they went through the entire process.

And it would include the portion of the process where the wet swatches were put into the test-tubes?

Yes.

And it would include the part of the process where the next morning the swatches were taken out of the test-tubes with the pipette?

Yes, assuming they all went through the same possess.

And it would include that part of the process where the swatches were then folded into the bindles?

Again, the same answer.

All right. Now, looking at that portion of the process, your--the answers you gave yesterday to the questions were based specifically on the assumption that the substrate controls, I think these were your words, were systematically alternated between the specimen sample and the substrate controls?

I believe that was my understanding.

You used the word "systematically alternated," correct?

Wait, wait, wait.

I thought he finished.

You walked over his answer. He wasn't finished yet.

Also, Mr. Sims, take a breath before you start answering his questions.

All right.

Proceed.

Thank you.

And you--

Yes, I--my answer was that my understanding was that they were systematically taken in these steps.

Well, let's put it another way. You were basing your answers on the assumption that the criminalist systematically alternated between handling the specimen, then the substrate control, then the series of specimen swatches, the substrate control, the series of specimen swatches, the substrate control, et cetera, right?

Yes.

And the reason that that is--and that is the critical assumption to your notion that these substrate controls can tell us--give us information about cross-contamination?

Objection. That misstates his testimony, your Honor.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

All right. The idea of a control giving you information about cross-contamination is that the control must be handled in parallel or in the same way that you handled the specimens.

Objection, that is vague. What context, your Honor?

Overruled.

Well, my answer to that would be that whenever you are processing samples, whether it be stains, substrate controls, stains, one does look to the order of the processing, because if the inference is that something here cross-contaminated the next one, then it doesn't make sense that this one down here was cross-contaminated from something up here. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Right. Oh, precisely, and that is the reason your--that is the reason that you are saying that one might be able to draw conclusions about cross-contamination, is because you are assuming that there was systematic alternation in the handling of the specimens? In other words, the substrate controls were handled in parallel in a systematic alternation with the specimens?

Objection. It is vague in terms of what is in parallel in what part of the process we are talking about.

Overruled. Do you understand the question?

I think I do. I think if you are talking about just the substrate controls, then the alternation is part of that. What I was talking about, too, though, is--is that you are looking at how things are processed and the idea of what could potentially get contaminated down the line.

But your--

So that would be stain, stain, stain, too.

But your answers yesterday, you used the word with respect to the questions, you are assuming that the substrate controls and the specimens were handled with a systematic alternation?

Yes.

Now--

Objection, your Honor. That is vague in terms of if there are different terms that have--

Overruled. We have asked that.

Let's talk about--let's just talk about just, for example, a reagent control.

Okay.

The reagent control is the one where you are at the point of extraction in the PCR process?

Yes.

And you are putting into the tubes the different reagents that go into the PCR mix?

Yes.

So you have one tube, for example, that has the--maybe a specimen that has a swatch with blood on it?

Okay.

Is that what happens?

Yes. The only thing I think we mixed up on was when you mentioned the PCR mix. You are actually talking about the extraction now.

All right. Yes. It is--

The extraction.

I'm talking about the stuff you put into the tube.

Okay. This is now to get the DNA out of the samples?

Yes.

So that is an extraction.

Okay.

Okay.

But the reagent control is that you take a tube without any swatch in it and you put the reagents in it, right?

Yes.

And when you do that, you do it in parallel with all the other specimens?

Well, you are actually doing it in sequence.

In sequence, right?

Yes.

In other words, you are going to make sure that you are taking the reagents to make up this control from the same batch, same lots, the same time, as you are creating the reagents for the other tubes, right?

Yes.

And that is what gives you some confidence that the control would work, because you are running that reagent control in parallel or handling in the same way that you are handling all the other specimens?

Yes.

And that is what gives you the information about whether or not there may be some contaminant in the reagents that were used?

Yes.

So it would--it would be of no particular use if you took the reagents from a run you did in the afternoon and then used--and ran that one, that wouldn't tell you about whether you had contamination on a previous run, would it?

Well, I'm not sure I understand that, because aren't we talking about the same reagents?

Well, that would be the question. Are we talking about the--let me--let me get it in another way.

Okay.

If the substrate controls here were not handled with systematic alternation--are you with me?

As far as the evidence processing now?

As far as the handling of the evidence is concerned, all right?

Yes.

And let's say that a series of specimen swatches were handled in a batch.

Okay.

And maybe a series of control swatches were handled in a batch.

Okay.

That would not be the kind of systematic alternation you were talking about yesterday?

Objection, improper hypothetical, misstates the testimony.

Overruled.

In other words, if the substrate controls were processed entirely differently from the swatches themselves? Is that what you are saying?

Well, the--we don't need the word "entirely." let's just say some of them were handled in a batch together and a series of specimen items were handled in a batch together.

Objection. That is vague. Together with what?

Overruled.

Does this--I guess what I'm confused on is do you mean now in the collection process also or are you talking about just in the laboratory or--

I'm talk--let's just focus. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. Let's just focus on handling in the laboratory.

Okay.

And the substrate controls were not handled with systematic alternation as you discussed yesterday.

Okay.

Would that not undermine the value of the substrate controls in terms of giving us any information about cross-contamination in the handling of the specimens?

I think it would--you would have to say you don't have as much information there, that is true.

And in order to make sure that a substrate control is serving as more than just a control about what came from the substrate, but as a control about--a control that gives you information about cross-contamination, it would be a good thing if the criminalists involved understood that the substrate control would serve that function?

Your Honor, objection. It is irrelevant, beyond the scope of direct.

Overruled.

Yes.

Because you are counting on the criminalists involved to carefully systematically alternate their handling of the specimen samples and the substrate controls?

Well, no. I'm counting on the criminalist to do everything that the criminalist does in a careful fashion. What you are asking me is can I make as much inference about how these things were handled retroactively given a particular nature? Yes. I mean, that is--I'm not counting on that as much as I'm counting on them handling it in a careful fashion all the way down.

You are counting on them handling it in a careful fashion and doing systematic alternation. That was the way you answered the questions yesterday?

No. I'm saying if you are going to place that great reliance on those substrate controls, on the negative results from the substrate control, if you are going to use that as an inference that then these things were processed properly, then that is correct. On the other hand, just because that wasn't done, it doesn't mean they weren't done properly.

Well, the--you would agree that to do this it would be useful to ensure that there really was systematic alternation in the handling of the substrate controls and the specimens if the criminalist performing that operation knew that it was important to systematically alternate?

Yes.

And systematic alternation of the substrate controls as a check on cross-contamination should continue not just in the handling of the samples in the laboratory, but through the process where you extract the DNA?

Yes.

And it should continue in the process of sending substrate controls of--of cutting up specimens and substrate controls and sending them to other laboratories?

Objection. That is argumentative, your Honor.

Sustained. It goes beyond the scope of direct.

Let's try this.

Which board is this, Mr. Scheck?

That was my mistake. It is exhibit no. 177-C, "LAPD evidence disposition summary."

Now, the Los Angeles Police Department sent you, DOJ, sample 47, the Bundy swatch on August 12th, 1994?

I believe that's correct, yes.

And they sent you on August 12th, 1994, sample 48, another--some Bundy swatches, right?

Yes.

And 49 on August 12th, `94, they sent you Bundy swatches, right?

Yes.

And on August 12th they sent you no. 50, some Bundy swatches?

Yes.

And they actually sent--now, 52 was at cellmark, right? You didn't get that on August 12th?

That's correct.

But looking at this board you see these--these logos where that is the swatch with red, that represents the bloodstain swatches?

Yes.

They didn't send you the substrate controls until September 7, 1994, for sample 47, 48, 49 or 50?

That's correct.

In fact, Mr. Sims, didn't you call the people at the Los Angeles Police Department and say, "send me the substrate controls because substrate controls ought to be handled with systematic alternation with the specimens as a protection against cross-contamination"?

I'm sure I didn't use those words, but I--as I recall, I'm--a little bit of history here. This case originally started out looking as an RFLP case because those swatches from the Bundy crime scene looked like very good bloodstains to work with in their appearance--

Mr. Sims, let me--I don't mean to--to be impolite to you at all, forgive me, but I think the answer is not responsive.

Motion to strike, your Honor. I object to the speech, your Honor.

Move to strike his answer as nonresponsive.

Why don't you answer the question.

My question is, sir, a very simple one. Did you ask the Los Angeles Police Department to send you the substrate controls in--after you had first received the specimen controls without the substrate controls?

I don't know if I asked the LAPD or if I put that request through Lisa Kahn of the District Attorney's office.

So in other words, you put the request into the District Attorney's office to pass on to the LAPD to ask them to send you the substrate controls?

I may have done that, yes. I don't know if--I may have spoken to LAPD. I can't recall who I contacted.

The point is, sir, you wanted the substrate controls, didn't you?

Yes, I did.

And you wanted the substrate controls because when you were performing DNA analysis you were going to make sure to systematically alternate your handling of the substrate controls and the specimen items?

When you got the substrate controls in September and you went through the rest of the analysis, you would treat the substrate control in parallel with the specimen when performing your DNA analysis?

Because you didn't have them?

Because I did not have them.

And if you had them you would have processed the substrate controls in the same fashion that you processed the specimens?

Yes, I would.

Objection. "in the same fashion" is vague, your Honor.

Overruled.

Thank you.

Now, talking about the issue of substrate controls, you performed analysis on Mr. Goldman's shirt?

Yes, I did.

Actually I think I'm finished with this board.

Maybe while I'm playing with the board, could you maybe turn to your notes on that item.

Okay.

That would be LAPD item 81.

Yes.

And you attempted to take a substrate control from the shirt?

Well to--

To cut one, I should say?

The correction on that would be that LAPD submitted a substrate control along with cuttings from the shirt, so I tested the cuttings.

Okay. So in other words, they cut an area which was labeled "substrate control" from the shirt; is that correct?

Yes.

And you performed a PCR analysis of that substrate control?

Actually that was performed by Renee Montgomery, but our laboratory did, yes, it was for D1S80 PCR marker.

And you got a result of 18, 18 for that substrate control?

We characterized that as a trace of the 18 allele, yes.

And that would be a genotype consistent with the DNA from Nicole Brown Simpson?

Yes, it would.

And that is on Mr. Goldman's shirt?

Yes.

And did you examine the substrate control itself, that cutting?

Yes, I believe I did.

And did you see what appeared to be blood flakes on that shirt?

Yes. My notes on page 158 indicate that.

So in other words, in the substrate control on Mr. Goldman's shirt you found flakes of blood which, using PCR typing, you were able to determined a result that was consistent on the D1S80 system with Nicole Brown Simpson?

Yes.

Now, would that be consistent with--withdrawn. You talked about how substrate controls can be evidence of samples being cross-contaminated?

Yes.

Would this finding you made on the substrate control be evidence that Mr. Goldman's shirt had been cross-contaminated with clothing from Nicole Brown Simpson?

Objection, calls for speculation; no foundation, improper hypothetical.

Overruled.

The--can you repeat exactly what you were saying?

Sure.

Would this finding on the substrate control of Mr. Goldman's shirt be consistent with there having been a cross-contamination with this shirt and clothing of Nicole Brown Simpson that had her blood on it?

Would it be consistent with that? In other words, is that a possibility?

Yeah.

Other possibilities are that Mr. Goldman's body was dragged across the crime scene into an area where it came into contact with blood from Nicole Brown Simpson?

Objection, improper hypothetical.

Sustained.

Calls for speculation.

On--you also got a control--did you--with respect to Nicole Brown Simpson's dress--

Yes.

--did you receive a substrate control cuttings or did you make some?

On that particular item, I sampled--I did the sampling. I did not take a substrate control on that particular item because it was very bloody. The entire garment was--appeared to have blood and it would seem to be hard to find an area with absolutely no blood on it.

But you did take three cuttings labeled G3, G5--G3, G5 and what would be the other one?

How about G6 maybe.

Yeah. And these were cuttings from around the right shoulder area?

Yes, the right upper back.

And you performed a D1S80 analysis on those cuttings, or Miss Montgomery did?

Yes.

And you got a finding of an 18 allele and a 24 allele?

We--on one of the cuttings, G3, it was an 18 allele with a weaker 24 allele, indicating a mixture. On G5 and G6 the type it was determined to be 18, 18 with a trace of the 24th allele.

And that would--that mixture would be consistent with DNA typings of Nicole Brown Simpson, which for D1S80 are 18, 18?

Yes.

And traces of--of DNA from Ronald Goldman whose type for the D1S80 system is 24, 24?

Yes.

Your Honor, I have another question that I want to ask this witness, but before I do I think I need to seek some guidance from the Court.

All right. With the court reporter, please.